Foreign Relations of the United States, 1894, Appendix II, Affairs in Hawaii

Mr. Willis to Mr. Gresham.

No. 20½]

Legation of the United States,
Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands, January 5, 1894.

Sir: On Tuesday the 26th ultimo, as stated in my dispatch No. 20, of December 26, I wrote to Hon. S. B. Dole, minister of foreign affairs, acknowledging the receipt of his response to the decision of the President and informing him that his communication had been forwarded to you.

On Wednesday the 27th ultimo, at 12 a.m., the steamship Oceanic arrived, with newspapers containing the President’s special message in full, together with the instructions to Mr. Blount and myself. The message was reproduced in the afternoon papers under conspicuous headlines.

At 4 p.m. of the same day I received the four-page, closely-written letter, which I inclose, from Mr. Dole, minister of foreign affairs, asking to be informed, “with the least delay, whether you (I) held instructions to enforce your policy with the use of arms in any event.” The information desired, although fully embodied in the President’s message, might have been asked for and, except for the remarkable statements contained in the letter, would have been promptly and satisfactorily given in a few words.

Confident that the charges so surprisingly and unjustly made could not be sustained, an answer, herewith inclosed, was on the following (Thursday) morning sent to Minister Dole, asking that they be made more direct and specific.

On Friday morning, 29th ultimo, I received another letter from Mr. Dole, herewith inclosed, in which he says the “special message of the President of the United States * * * has rendered any further correspondence on the subject of my letter of 27th December unnecessary, as the message satisfactorily answers the question;” but he added, “If you still desire the specifications requested I will be ready to furnish them.”

The instruction of the President to me had been strictly followed or, if departed from at all, it had been in favor of the beneficiaries of our wrongdoing. I felt, therefore, that the statements contained in the letter of Mr. Dole of the 27th ultimo were directed not at me personally, but at the President, and should be qualified or absolutely withdrawn.

Believing, from the high character and sense of justice of Mr. Dole, that if he reexamined his letter such would be the result, I wrote him a note, which I inclose. This note was delivered at his residence on the night of the same day (Friday, December 29) upon which his second letter was received. Having no answer up to Sunday night (December 31), and having occasion to communicate with his colleague, Mr. Damon, upon another matter, I called his attention to the failure of Mr. Dole to reply to my note, which, I explained to him, was written with no unfriendly purpose, but was, as by itself declared, “for the best interests of all.” He informed me that the “Advisory Council” met the next day at 12 o’clock, and he thought the subject would then receive attention.

At 3 p.m. of that day (January 1) I received the letter from Hon, S. B. Dole, herewith inclosed, in which he states that “it was not my intention to withdraw any of my letters.” This, of course, left every charge and statement in full force as of that date.

Believing that these charges, whether so intended or not, reflected very unjustly upon the President, whose agent I was, at 6 p.m. of the same day (Monday, January 1) I replied in the inclosed letter, asking that the “desired specifications be furnished at the earliest convenience.”

Up to this hour (Friday, January 5) no reply has been received to this request nor have I any intimation when one may be expected. My request for specifications has been in the hands of the minister of foreign affairs since Monday, January 1, at 6 o’clock. I had hoped to receive it in time to answer by steamer Pekin, leaving to-day at 2 o’clock, especially as Mr. Thurston and Mr. Hatch, late Vice-President of the Provisional Government, leave to-morrow on the Australia for the United States. This delay in answering is a great surprise and regret.

I am fully prepared to show that every step taken by the representatives of our Government has been in the direction of peace and good order and that the military preparations of the Provisional Government were in progress at the time of my arrival, cases of arms, as I telegraphed you on November 4, having been brought by the steamer upon which I arrived. At that time and up to the morning of November 24 (which was the day your letter to the President first appeared here) it will not be claimed that there was the slightest apprehension as to the interference of the United States forces. And yet on the 13th of November, as is well known here, the greatest excitement prevailed at the Executive building, the military forces were increased in number, and the volunteer companies were ordered on duty at night. These preparations were due, not to any fear of “American intervention,” but as Mr. Damon, minister of finance, called officially to explain, resulted from the apprehensions of many citizens, mostly women and children, that as the following day was the birthday anniversary of King Kalakaua large numbers of natives from the adjoining districts would be here and an outbreak might occur. The steamer leaves in a few moments and I am unable to write more at length, but will do so when the expected answer is received.

With high regard, I am, very respectfully,

Albert S. Willis,
Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary,
United States of America.

[Inclosure No. 1 in No. 20½.]

Mr. Dole to Mr. Willis.

Department of Foreign Affairs,
Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands, December 27, 1893.

Sir: Pending the further action of the Government of the United States upon the matters contained in your communication of December 19, and my reply to the same, dated December 23, I desire to call your excellency’s most serious consideration to the dangerous and critical condition of this community, arising, I must respectfully submit, out of the attitude which you have assumed, and the language which you have used in public, and in communications to this Government, and also out of the published letter of the Secretary of State of the United States, and the President’s message on the subject of the restoration of the monarchy.

I do not, however, claim or intimate that this unfortunate situation has been intentionally created by you, or by the Government which you represent, but arises from a natural construction of your attitude, and the ambiguous terms of the statements referred to.

At the time of your arrival in this country the forces of this Government were organized and were amply sufficient to suppress any internal disorder.

After your arrival you made communications regarding your policy which were ambiguous, and for several weeks you failed to disclose your intentions, and have Only partially done so up to the present moment, leaving this Government to infer what they may ultimately be from the letter of Mr. Gresham and the President’s message, in which it has been declared in very distinct language that the deposed Queen ought to be restored to the throne by the Government of the United States, and leaving us, further, to infer that this assumed obligation would be discharged. Your language expressed in public declared that you intended to perform some act when the proper time arrived, without disclosing what that act would be.

Under these circumstances there arose at once a general feeling of disquiet. The natural inference, from your attitude, language, and refusal to disclose your purpose and from Mr. Gresham’s letter and the President’s message, was, and is, that you intended to use force in maintaining your policy. The fact is well known that you, as admitted by yourself in your communication of December 19, without the consent or knowledge of this Government, have held negotiations with the deposed Queen for the purpose of overthrowing this Government. The apprehension of both political parties, as well as that of persons who remain neutral in these matters, is that you hold instructions to use physical force for the restoration of the monarchy. I am not prepared to state that this Government entertains this opinion, although its want of information to the contrary has compelled it to act as if it was correct.

In consequence of your attitude in this behalf, the enemies of the Government, believing in your intentions to restore the monarchy by force, have become emboldened. Threats of assassination of the officers of this Government have been made. The police force is frequently informed of conspiracies to create disorder. Aged and sick persons, of all nationalities, have been and are in a state of distress and anxiety. Children in the schools are agitated by the fear of political disturbances. The wives, sisters, and daughters of residents, including many Americans, have been in daily apprehension of civic disorder, many of them having even armed themselves in preparation therefor; citizens have made preparation in their homes for defense against assaults which may arise directly or indirectly from such conflict. Persons have begun to pack their valuables with a view of immediate departure; large quantities of bandages have been prepared. Unprotected women have received the promise of asylum from the Japanese representative against possible disturbance arising in consequence of American invasion. Rumors of the intended landing of your forces for offensive purposes have agitated the community for many days. The situation for weeks has been one of warfare, without the incident of actual combat. Even the ex-Queen has called upon this Government for protection, which was awarded to her. Owing to your attitude, the Government has been compelled by public apprehension to largely increase its military force, at great expense. Its offices have been placed and still continue in a condition of defense and preparation for siege; and the community has been put into a state of mind bordering on terrorism.

This Government has most earnestly sought from you, and through our representative at Washington from your Government, some assurance that force would not be used, and has failed to obtain it. Your action has, unfortunately, aroused the passions of all parties, and made it probable that disturbances may be created at any moment.

I am informed by military authorities that while the force at your command is sufficient to destroy this city it is insufficient to suppress any general rising and conflict of armed forces and insurrections or to prevent the loss of life and property.

This Government is reluctant to believe that this condition of affairs was contemplated or expected by yourself or by the President of the United States.

I have therefore to ask you to inform me with the least delay whether you hold instructions to inforce your policy with the use of arms in any event.

I trust that you will be able, in reply, to give assurances that will tend to allay the apprehensions existing in the community.

I have the honor to be, with the highest consideration,

Your excellency’s obedient servant,

Sanford B. Dole,
Minister of Foreign Affairs.

[Inclosure No. 2 in No. 20½.]

Mr. Willis to Mr. Dole.

Legation of the United States,
Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands, December 27, 1893.

Sir: Your communication of this date was delivered at 4 p.m., and would have received an immediate answer except for the statements reflecting upon the President of the United States and upon his diplomatic agent in this country, which, in view of their gravity, should, I respectfully submit, be set forth with more particularity and certainty.

In order, therefore, to answer your communication as it deserves to be answered, I beg leave to call your attention to the following clauses and sentences, which can not be properly commented on or replied to until understood.

(1) You refer in several places to “the attitude which you (the diplomatic agent of the United States) assumed,” “the natural construction of my attitude,” “the natural inference from your attitude,” “in consequence of your attitude in this behalf,” “owing to your attitude the Government has been compelled,” etc.

“Attitude,” as is well understood, is “essentially and designedly expressive,” its object being “to set forth and exhibit some internal feeling.”

If this is the accepted meaning of the word will you point out when, and where, and how, the representative of the United States “assumed” any “attitude” towards the supporters of the Provisional Government, or that Government itself, other than one “essentially and designedly expressive” of peace.

(2) You assert that “at the time of your (my) arrival in this country the forces of this (your) Government were organized and were amply sufficient to” suppress any internal disorder.” Will you inform me what connection this statement has or is desired to have with the Government of the United States or with the future action of its representative?

(3) You refer to the “language which you (I) have used in public, and in communication to this (your) Government,” but you give neither the time, place, or subject-matter of the “language” or “communication.”

(4) You call attention to the “published letter of the Secretary of State of the United States, and the President’s message on the subject of the restoration of the Queen,” but you quote the words of neither, so that if I were at liberty to discuss with yon, matters not properly subject to diplomatic cognizance, I have not sufficient data to do so, as the Secretary’s letter is not before me and the President liar transmitted to the Congress two messages on the subject referred to, both of which, I assume, you were familiar with at the time you wrote your communication. May I ask, therefore, to which message do you refer, or do you include both?

(5) You further state that “after your (my) arrival, you (I) made communications regarding your policy, which were ambiguous.” May I ask to whom and when these “communications” were made and what were their contents?

(6) You also say “your (my) language, expressed in public, declared that you (I) intended to perform some act when the proper time arrived, without declaring what that act would be.” May I inquire, again, when and where and to what “public” was such language used?

(7) You further say: “This Government has most earnestly sought from you * * * some assurance that force would not be used, and has failed to obtain it.” Will you inform me at what time and in what manner your Government “earnestly sought” the “assurance” referred to?

In conclusion, I would ask your careful consideration of the following statement: “Your (my) action has unfortunately aroused the passions of all parties and made it probable that disturbances may be created at any moment.” Before replying to the above, I think that your further attention should be drawn to it, as I refuse to believe that upon reexamination you will feel at liberty to affix your official signature to such an extraordinary declaration.

Hoping that you will enable me to reply “with the least delay,” as requested, by giving me the desired information, I am, sir, with renewed assurances of friendly consideration,

Very respectfully,

Albert S. Willis,
Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary, United States of America.

[Inclosure No. 3 in No. 20½.]

Mr. Dole to Mr. Willis.

Department of Foreign Affairs,
Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands, December 29, 1893.

Sir. Your excellency’s letter of December 27, referring to my communication of the same date, which requests information as to the nature of your instructions from your Government in regard to the use of force against this Government, and asking for a more specific statement of matters therein contained, has been received.

I desire to state that the arrival of newspaper copies by the late mail, since my note to you was written, of the special message of the President of the United States to Congress on the Hawaiian matter has rendered any further correspondence on the subject of my letter unnecessary, as the message satisfactorily answers my question as to future action of the American administration towards the Government, the whole Hawaiian matter having been referred to Congress by the President.

If, however, you still desire the specifications requested I will be ready to furnish them.

With assurances of the highest consideration, etc.,

Sanford B. Dole,
Minister of Foreign Affairs.

[Inclosure 4 in No. 20½.]

Mr. Willis to Mr. Dole.

Honolulu, December 29, 1893.

Sir: I received your note of this date in answer to one from me of the 27th instant. Am I to understand that your communication of the latter date is withdrawn? It this is your intention, as I hope it is, I would for the best interests of all, suggest that the whole correspondence on the subject be withdrawn, with the understanding that the original letters be returned to their authors, and that no copies be given to the public or made a record by either government.

With sincere regard, I am, etc.,

Albert S. Willis.

[Inclosure 5 in No. 20½.]

Without signature to Mr. Willis.

Department of Foreign Affairs,
Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands, January 1, 1894.

Sir: Your Excellency’s communication of December 29, inquiring if my note amounted to a withdrawal of my communication on the subject referred to, has been received.

It was not my intention to withdraw any of my letters, but merely to inform you that the arrival of newspaper copies of the special message of the President of the United States on the Hawaiian matter, made it unnecessary for me to press you for further answer to my question.

With the highest appreciation of your kindly interest, I have the honor, etc.,

____________

Minister of Foreign Affairs.

(Not signed.)

[Inclosure 6. in No. 20½.]

Mr. Willis to Mr. Dole.

Legation of the United States,
Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands, January 1, 1894.

Sir: On the 27th ultimo, at 4 o’clock in the afternoon, I received a lengthy communication from you containing statements, which I am fully prepared to show are not warranted by the facts, seriously affecting the President of the United States and the representatives of the United States in this country. These charges and statements, if accepted as the official views of your Government, demanded prompt answer and equally prompt action on the part of the Government of the United States, to the end that the condition of things therein described should be removed by the removal of the alleged causes.

In order more satisfactorily to answer your communication I immediately, in a letter written the same day, requested a more specific statement upon seven points at issue.

I have the honor now to acknowledge the receipt on last Friday, December 29, at 1 p.m., of a letter from you stating that the last message of the President of the United States “satisfactorily answers your question as to the future action of the American administration toward this (your) Government.”

You further say: “If, however, you still desire the specifications requested I will be ready to furnish them.”

In reply to this last letter, I beg leave most respectfully to state that if your first communication on this subject had been confined to the single question above mentioned an immediate and satisfactory answer would have been given. That a different course was adopted, has been a source of sincere and profound regret to myself, as it will be, I know, to my Government, and this for several reasons, among which not the least is that it brings for the first time the official information that the warlike preparations described by you were caused by and intended for the diplomatic and military representatives of the United States.

Your communications on this subject, being official in character, become a part of the permanent records of this legation, and are required to be transmitted to the Government at Washington.

In view of these facts, and in the confident belief that upon fuller consideration you would realize the great injustice of your statements, I wrote you a brief note, which was delivered at your residence on the night of Friday, December 29, expressing the hope that your letter of the 27th instant was intended as a withdrawal of your first communication, and stating that if such was the case I would “for the best interests of all suggest that the whole correspondence on the subject be withdrawn, with the understanding that the original letters be returned to their authors and that no copies be given to the public or made a record by either Government.”

Having received no reply to this note, I took occasion last night (December 31) to explain in an informal way to one of your ministers (Mr. Damon) that my note to you was prompted by no improper or unfriendly spirit, but was intended to continue the amicable relations heretofore existing.

There was in your letter of December 29 no withdrawal or modification of the statements and charges complained of, but on the contrary an expression of “readiness,” implying ability, to furnish the “specifications requested.”

I am just in receipt of your letter (which bears no signature) of this date, in reply to my last note, in which you say: “It is not my intention to withdraw any of my letters, but merely to inform you that the arrival of newspaper copies of the special message of the President of the United States on the Hawaiian matter made it unnecessary for me to press you for further answer to my question.”

Accepting the above as your decision, I have now to ask that your furnish me, at your earliest convenience, with the desired specifications, as I wish to make immediate answer.

With renewed assurances, etc.,

Albert S. Willis,
Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary, United States of America.